NORTHERN INDIA IRON AND STEEL CO GLOBE MOTORS LIMITED LALDEE PRIVATE LIMITED EASTERN ELECTRONICS DELHI LIMITED FARIDABAD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these appeals by special leave the common question for determination is whether the Haryana State Electricity Board (briefly, the Board), respondent No. 2, is entitled to claim any demand charge from the appellants in respect of the supply of electric energy to them and whether the State of Haryana, respondent No. 1 is entitled to charge any duty under the Punjab Electricity (Duty) Act, 1958 on the demand charge. Several connected Writ Petitions were disposed of by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by a common Judgment and this judgment will govern all the cases which had been heard together by us.

(2.) Civil Appeal No. 1306/1975 is by M/s. Northern India Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and arises out of Writ Petition No. 733/1975. We may state a few necessary facts of this case; those of the other cases being more or less similar. The appellant owns a factory and manufactures alloy steel and steel castings. It is a large consumer of electricity supplied by the Board. As per the contract between the appellant and the board the total connected load of the installation in question is 8687, 649 Kilowatts and its contract demand is the same. At the ratio of one K. V. to 0.85 KW, the corresponding K. V. of the contract demand works to 10,221 K. V. The appellant was allotted 1,06,590 units on daily basis as its power quota by the Board. There was shortage of electric energy in the State of Haryana. The State Government, therefore, issued orders and directions for maintaining the supply and securing the equitable distribution of the energy. Orders were issued by the State Government under Section 228 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - hereinafter called the 1910 Act, restricting considerably the supply of electric energy by the Board to the large industrial consumers as a result of which power cut was introduced. It is not necessary to give the facts and figures of the amount of power cut, suffice it to say that at the relevant time there were substantial power cuts and the appellant was not able to get supply of energy according to its demand as per the quantity mentioned in the contract. In these circumstances a dispute arose between the parties as to whether the Board was entitled to get any demand charge, if so to what extent, and whether the State could demand any duty on such charge. Under Sec. 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 hereinafter called the 1948 Act, the Board may supply electricity to any person not being a licensee upon such terms and conditions as the Board thinks fit and may for the purposes of such supply frame uniform tariffs; of course, the power of the Board is subject to the other provisions of the Act and regulations, if any, made in this behalf.

(3.) There are two well-known systems of tariffs - one is the flat rate system and the other is known as the two-part tariff system. Under the former a flat rate is charged on unit of energy consumed. The latter system is meant for big consumers of electricity and it comprised of (1) demand charges to cover investment, installation and the standing charges to some extent. and (2) energy charges for the actual amount of energy consumed. The Board has framed in exercise of its power under Sec. 49 of the 1948 Act certain terms and conditions and procedure in regard to supply of electricity to its consumers. They are applicable in the cases of the appellants also. Demand charge has been defined in clause 1 (h) thus :